By Mark J. Valencia
Those making accusations should begin by defining exactly what they mean by “militarization.”
U.S. President Barack Obama and his Defense Secretary Ashton Carter have repeatedly warned China not to militarize the Spratly islands in the South China Sea. But China claims that it is the United States that is militarizing the region and the South China Sea disputes. Who is doing what, is it “militarization,” and why does it matter?
On November 21, Obama appealed to the region’s leaders gathered at the East Asia Summit.declaring that “For the sake of regional stability, the claimants should halt reclamation, construction and militarization in disputed areas.” He was trying to build on the hint of progress manifest in an impromptu public statement by China’s President Xi Jinping at the conclusion of his visit to Washington, in which he assured all that “China does not intend to pursue militarization” of the Spratly Islands. Unfortunately Xi did not elaborate in public or private. But it is clear that the U.S. intends to hold him to its interpretation of the term. However, in a subsequent confusing twist, China’s Deputy Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin said at the East Asia Summit “One should never link the military facilities with efforts to militarize the South China Sea. This is a false argument. It is a consistent Chinese position to firmly oppose the militarization of the South China Sea.”
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “militarization” as “to give a military character to or to adapt for military use.” This is pretty clear. Under this definition all the claimants to and occupiers of Spratly features – China, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam – “militarized them” years ago. Indeed, all have stationed military personnel there and built airstrips and harbors that can and have accommodated military aircraft and vessels.
So what specifically does the U.S. mean by “militarization” when it accuses China of it and demands that it refrain from doing so? Is occasional military use all right? But what is “occasional” military use? What if that military use is for humanitarian purposes such as search and rescue or disaster response? Does the intent of the use matter – and who decides? How about if it is “for defensive purposes only” – an argument that the U.S. uses frequently to justify its forward deployment of military forces and assets in Asia?
Read the full story at The Diplomat